Tom Kawczynski - Off the Record

I believe the "Tea Party" movement will diminish far more quickly than most people anticipate.  It does not make me happy to see this happen, but the decisions and conflicts that are happening today make me think that it is inevitable.

The basic concept in all marketing is that you want your product or service to appeal to the largest number of possible consumers.  When it was first introduced last year, the "Tea Party" represented a fresh movement for citizen protest, that was not explicitly linked to any one party or ideology, and that recognized that Bush as much as Obama were just as responsible for the growth of a rapidly expanding state.  There were Democrats, Republicans, and Independents motivated and hopeful.  This is rapidly changing.

With the Democratic Party controlling the government, their more liberal wing is in ascendancy and has been pushing with surprising force and speed to expand the role of government.  Despite loud and vociferous protests, they have continued forward and are now actively pursuing a strategy of division, where they seem willing to stand and fight for their beliefs.

In contrast, the Republican Party has made extensive overtures to the "Tea Party" movement after the drubbing they took in 2008.  With the Democrats offering no alternative that would be acceptable to these voters, the nature of our system is such that the small government voters are coming en masse into the GOP, despite many having reservations.  Promises are being made, but will they be kept?  I tend to think not, but more on that later.

Recognizing their problem, that they lack the infrastructure to compete with the forces of the conventional left, the Republicans are trying to co-opt the "Tea Party" into their ranks.  Through funding, name recognition, and the selective use of media, I believe they are succeeding.  I've watched over the last few months how a message of liberty and limited government is being subtly expanded to seem more like the GOP platform, with values and military flexing being added.  There is, perhaps, a new coalition forming in this, as both the GOP and "Tea Party" will be changed by their encounter, but it strikes me as a bad marriage for both political reasons and practical ones.

As stated at the beginning, the real value of the "Tea Party" was that it was perceived as independent.  It meant people had a reason to listen.  If the GOP provided that, there would not have been the need for this movement.  Now that the "Tea Party" is quickly becoming "Teabaggers" in the eyes of much of the public, unfortunately defined by the most extreme elements, their efficacy will decline and politicians will keep them at arm's length.  Being loved in a primary, neglected in the general, and forgotten once elected will not endear these voters to the politicians who are now pandering to the "Tea Party" movement.

For their part, I think the Republicans will find the voters whom they assume are their new groundswell of support will not stay behind them.  Should they succeed in 2010, there will be high expectations that will not be met because of the divided nature of government, the corrupting influence of money, and the impracticality of seeking so much reform at once.  It won't happen.  But the politicians are raising such expectations with campaign rhetoric, as I watch repeatedly, and should a few be fortunate enough to get elected, I wonder whether the amount needed for re-election will be enough of a draw to encourage those first compromises.

Contrary to popular belief, politicians are not usually bad people.  They are, however, often vain, and rarely like to lose.  The rationale becomes that I make one deal so that I can fight for another day.  That is why many successful politicians position themselves as reasonable and moderate (especially in fairly drawn districts), because they can shift to reach the largest number of voters.  I am betting most of the conservative constitutionalists will soon discover this fact for themselves to the lament of their current supporters.

You can see some fault lines emerge where the movement and politicians will part ways.  But between the expectations of ideological purity from the base, and the pramgatic calculations of the politicians, hearts will be broken on both sides.  If you're still not convinced, look at some of the issues.  The values stand that the GOP is bringing to the "Tea Party" means government regulation about how to live, anathema to liberty.  Or, look at the aggressive foreign policy posturing:  How can you spend indefinitely in wars without bankrupting a budget?  I could go on, but I don't think I need to do so.

Desperation over the successes of the Obama Administration have forced this alliance and I suspect it will hold through the 2010 elections to good benefit in many places.  Electoral success is a priority of most "Tea Party" groups, and you see the leadership of these movements becoming GOP leaders like Dick Armey through FreedomWorks and other similar organizations.  It is true that the movement has no leader, but that is because no one had the money or media savvy to make it so.  As that changes, so changes the movement, the identification, and the grassroots nature.  The Republican Party will gain new infrastructure from this and will change somewhat, but I don't think it will be anything other than an elephant with makeup in the end.

In 1994, promises were made by a starry eyed Republican Congress.  By 2006, judge for yourself the successes of their accomplishments.  Republicans, conservatives, limited government, Contracts with America, and promises of a smaller state.  What happened?  Why did it happen?  Would it happen again the same way?

If you read here often enough, you know that I think it will, and you know why I think that.  The nature of the two-party system, how it selects winners and bend lines, and how it is funded makes this inevitable.  It's winning politics, and losing government.  In the "Tea Party", there was hope for change based on principle first, but as winning becomes more important to those frustated, the future loss will be twofold:  loss on principle, lost in a party.

I've never been happier to be an independent, but as a fan of liberty, localized government, and sanity, I sometimes feel that it is a very lonely place to be.  I hope more of you will join me there.

I think that it is very important that we not only believe things, but that we live in accordance with our beliefs.  If you really believe in liberty and self-determination, then you have to respect the rights of others to the same, even when they disagree.  This is one reason that I'm a non-interventionist.  The world has enough problems without us trying to solve what others have as issues.

The other thing that is disheartening, once you begin to understand the connection, is just who benefits and who loses in many of these relationships.  Please understand this:  large business and large government are not enemies.  They are usually allies who work together for the mutual benefit at your expense.  The bailout can be seen as the first example, but if you prefer something more recent, consider that the functional impact of the health care bill is that now everyone is required to buy private health coverage or be heavily fined.

For those of you on the right, you might be surprised to know just how many on the left are mad about this, for the same reason you might be.  They are being forced to do something against their interest.  That is the point that I want to make in this, and that all my writing and speaking leads to:  only you can make the determination about what is in your interest and please do not cede that right freely to others, no matter how good their intentions.  When you want those powers back, you will regret it.

"History is written by the winners," says the timeless adage.  This is true, and it is also true that much is left unwritten by the very same.  I just finished reading a book by James Bradley titled The Imperial Cruise, which is a story about Theodore Roosevelt, a trip in 1905, and full of insight into what would shape the 20th Century in the Pacific theater.

Every nation has myths that they embrace about their goodness and virtue.  America is no exception.  While we have some people who truly live these ideals, most objective students of American imperial history know that the United States government has, at best, a mixed record in its actions abroad.  Although these are sometimes difficult to read and admit, I think we learn to be a better people and a better nation by looking at the past.

In the book, we are introduced to a Theodore Roosevelt who is substantially different than the brave Rough Rider that is lauded by pop history.  We find a sickly child who cultivates an image of himself that belies a largely patrician upbringing (remind you of any current politicians?) of luxury.  We find ourselves enmeshed in a time when the civilizing mission was to kill, breed away, and civilize the lesser races of the world, whether they be Negro, Slavic, Chink, or any other metaphor short of Teutonic.  We see a man in context, no worse than those of his time, but perhaps no better.

We see the Philippines, a nation that tried to create its own democracy, to have it crushed by Secretary (and future President) Taft, claiming that they needed to be civilized by the whites first before they could rule.  We see cynical manipulations between the finest families with sugar plantations in Hawaii and opium runners in China.  Money moves the world, and silver flows from China for these drugs.  A kingdom is lifted for popular sovereignty of the Aryan race.  It can all be researched.

Into this steps Roosevelt, with a series of deals and misunderstandings that would set the stage for so many tragedies of the 20th Century.  It was his words that encouraged Japan to assert its own Monroe Doctrine, to kick the US out of East Asia, even as he secretly gave up Korea to Japanese subjugation.  It was his insistence on belittling the Chinese as less than people, shared by many especially in California, that led to the first national boycott in Chinese history and contributed heavily to the formation of radical nationalism.  It was promises made, outside the Constitution, by someone interested in bringing the burden of civilization that would bring death and dehumanization to many people.

If you believe this story, and the evidence is compelling and overwhelming, this is the history of American intervention in the Pacific at the beginning of the century.  It is not something we would want to think, but it deserves your consideration.  In light of the imperial wars we make these days, in the name of democracy, what does it mean for self-determination?  Who gets rich and what is the purpose?  I wonder.

It's a hard thing for me sometimes because I really enjoy the image of Teddy Roosevelt that I had growing up.  I imagined a man of action, someone unafraid to lead boldly, and he was that.  But he was a man of his time as well, with the prejudices that were assigned to not just American, but all western civilization, about the nature of others.  He successfully rewrote his own history so well that we remember him today as a figure larger than life, and he was that.  Unfortunately, if Bradley is right, we might do better to lament some of his accomplishments.

The book itself is an entertaining narrative that should keep your attention.  We follow the cruise from launch in San Francisco through Japan, Korea, China, the Philippines, to it's conclusion.  The main characters are Roosevelt, Secretary of War Taft (which would be the old equivalent to the Secretary of Defense), his troublesome daughter Alice, and the ambassadors and people impacted by them at many places.  It's a read that makes this history come alive, and that you can enjoy regardless of your viewpoint.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in either American history, Asian history, or who questions how wars are justified.  If you've never read history that makes you question facts that you thought you knew, start here.

It is nearly midnight and my day is finally settling down.  It was a very long day, though productive.  I realize that for all the writing that I do, that readers rarely see what goes into the observations and involvement that this requires.  So, I'm going to do something different tonight, and share what a day looks like.

I work eight hours.  Some days are more strenuous than others, but today isn't too bad.  I spend my lunch hour meeting with a business partner planning ahead for the news site, trying to conserve time.  Through the afternoon, I am thinking and planning for the site as I work on my paid vocation.  With work ending, it is off to another meeting, to look at materials for promotional items.  Then, after a traffic jam, I go to a borough council meeting that lasts three hours.  Dinner is late night Mickey D's, and my poor dog and I both look beat.

Needless to say, I keep busy.  But it takes a while to learn what is happening in your world, and I try to understand.  Fortunately, I have a loving, intelligent, and indulging girlfriend.  That helps a lot, and I know it is only going to get worse.  The more you want to accomplish, the higher the price becomes.  And I think I've learned that only through talking to others and getting to know them does it become possible to make an impact.

If you wonder why I do it, it's because I both hope to understand what is happening, and then apply my own ideas to make the world around me better.  I'm really a hopeful idealist at heart, but sometimes it hides itself beneath a worn political exterior.

I’ve avoided writing about health care as long as humanly possible because there is no topic which I have found more difficult throughout my political involvement.  Literally an issue of life and death for some people and some families, the equation has always come down to an inhumane choice between cost on one hand, and quality of life on the other.  How can we have an unfunded mandate against how can we watch someone suffer because they lack the resources or coverage?  I struggled with this in my abortive state legislature run, and almost never talk about it because I could not articulate my thoughts clearly enough.  I will do so today, so this may end up being a very long discussion, and I will talk about the pending legislation in light of my personal views.

I believe access to quality health care should be treated as a right.  I fully agree with those who state that it is not included in Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, and that it was never the intention of the framers to see this.  To them, it would never have occurred to be a problem because the relationship between the doctor and the patient was direct, and health care was as simple as a bottle of whiskey, a couple of aspirins, and a house call.  Times have changed, and I find this is a question we should be asking ourselves as a society.  Given the resources we have and how we would choose to spend them, should we invest in our own future through making sure that everyone who wants access to health care has some ability to see both they and their families are covered.

Like many people who follow the issue, I have known that health care reform has been desperately needed for some time.  The present mishmash of public programs, emergency room visits, and underfunded clinics only costs more money because it is so disorganized.  It is misleading to some extent to point out only the structural costs of any pending legislation because we are paying all these other costs now.  Comprehensive reform, executed properly, would save many billions of dollars, and could help us compete as a nation with other countries where their businesses do not have the shoulder the burden of health care costs.

Having spent years as a Republican, I learned how to make a very effective economic argument for health care reform.  The truth, however, is that the real calculation has always been a human one for me.  When I walked the trail and talked to people, I learned of the real mishaps and misfortunes that people faced.  I learned about people losing their jobs because they got ill, and losing the insurance that sustained them.  How can you ever go to someone, whatever their background, and say in good conscience that your life or well-being just isn’t worth the cost?  Imagine the society that such thinking would create.  We like to believe we haven’t been that way, but I wonder.

I agree with the requirements that people with pre-existing conditions neither be excluded from health care coverage nor be dropped upon their discovery of an ailment.  Having insurance that only covers people in their health is ridiculous, and the sign of an industry that has the justifiable distaste of many people.  I do not trust health insurance companies as they stand between you and your doctors.

This debate has made it clear that the reason many people oppose this reform is out of fear for losing what health insurance they have.  I agree with and am very sympathetic to those fears.  I also see the fears of those who have no insurance at all, and must hope for the best.  I see those who are on public health care now, and who don’t have access to good care.  I see a need for change, and a challenge for our nation in facing the issue, and showing what we believe.

Life, liberty, and property:  I’ve argued time and time again for these three rights.  Health care is life.  In an age where we live in a land of great prosperity, seeing that all Americans have access to health insurance is morally right.  This is my belief, and I will defend it in private and in public.

Having shared that belief with you, I strongly oppose the bill before Congress this evening. 

The most important reason why I am opposed to this bill is because it requires an individual mandate whereby you are forced to purchase health insurance or you will be subject to civil penalties, scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service, and the potential for criminal action as a result.  This is the exact thinking that I became involved in politics to oppose, and that I believe is the complete opposite of the American tradition and intent.  Government should not be able to force Americans to do anything, but this bill would do that.  Functionally, this bill says get covered or get charged.

I have explained how I believe that every American should have access to quality health care as a fundamental right, but I also believe that the choice of getting that care must be reserved to the individuals themselves.  In America, you should have the right to say “no”.  Whether it is advisable or not, whether it serves the public interest, we are still a nation of individuals living under liberty, and we should be able to say “no thanks”.  Not for others, not for people who are suffering, and not to turn a blind eye to a problem that is bigger than people’s ability to handle.  But for ourselves, yes.  We have that right, and no government should and no power can ever remove that.

I have other issues with this bill.  I dislike how it has been drafted, with many meetings in secret, and numerous perks designed to attract specific votes.  I believe legislation that is well written should stand on its own merits and not need such lather.  I honestly do not think we can afford it, and having read more about how this will work, worry how the funding being reassigned from both Medicaid and the Social Security Trust Fund will help, especially as those programs are already on a trajectory for insolvency.  I could go on for a while talking about things I don’t like, but you can read that elsewhere.

There are those who might say that while these objections are fair, that we should pass the bill because providing support now to the people who need help matters most.  They do need help and we should act quickly, but we cannot afford to act rashly either.

The fundamental relationship that drives the health care equation must return to the doctor and the patient.  Health insurance plans are not going to achieve this.  New government programs are not going to achieve this.  This bill does not achieve this.  If anything, it empowers insurance companies, many of whom support this legislation because they know the requirement that people must buy insurance will increase the number of people they serve.

When I came to understand this bill, it reminded me precisely of why I mistrust Washington and why I’ve rededicated my own career path to local politics.  I am sick of arguments so rancorous and partisan where every argument is an attack designed to score points for the next election cycle.  This is a real problem we are facing here.  But, this bill is a combination of elements that don’t fit:  designing a public policy solution from an administration that wants a public answer, mixing private and public parts in a way that just doesn’t add up to me.  If you limit what people can be charged, but limit what companies make, and force employers to pay more, what will happen is that you will reduce choices, harm business, and hurt employment as larger businesses will cut their marginal employees.  A fully public option, or fully private option would work better and make more sense, but this is neither.  It’s a collection of ideas, some of which are good, some of which are bad, but that come together to make a new bureaucracy which will not be efficient and will have damaging effects we can only guess today.

We should ask these questions and have been remiss in not doing so, which is why we face the situation that we do today.  This Administration and this Congress, for better or worse, have been willing to do so where everyone should have done so long before.  Too many Americans have been sick and dying, and we simply accepted this.  The anger, the fear, and the needs of our fellow citizens have led us to this moment, and the government is responding to them.  No one else did.  That was our loss.

I support health care reform.  I support access to health care for all Americans who choose coverage with any conditions they may have.  I do believe it is a moral question, and one we should have all been asking with that degree of clarity.  But, even though it may already be too late, I wish there would have been a better way.  Not for the Republicans or the Democrats, but for a nation that needs to find a way to heal wounds that are more than just physical at this point.

I’m tired.  I’ve listened, fought, and tried to understand over this issue.  I know that I’ve managed to alienate my friends on the left and on the right, and it makes me quiet and feel sick.  I’ve seen hatred and a country dividing itself.  What makes me sad is a conviction deep inside wondering if it was all necessary, and the unshakable feeling that it wasn’t.  I blame everyone and blame no one, but I hope one thing:  I hope that whatever else this bill does, if it passes, and survives the numerous parliamentary, constitutional, and state obstacles, that people get the help they need.

More than ever, our failing as our nation isn’t our government.  It’s that we can’t solve our own problems anymore, and this was a big one that we just punted.  That’s the saddest thing of all to me.  This never should have become the problem that it is.

I've been reading much more lately than I had been for the previous months.  I wanted to share a review.

I recently read, The Moral Underground:  How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy by Lisa Dodson.  This is a book that talks about the experiences of workers and employers in situations where the rules established by work conflict with the needs of the people employed, and how that causes different responses.  Dodson spends time looking at ways how people adapt their lives to the rules imposed by employers and discovers that many employees and managers find they have to circumvent the established order in order to meet the basic needs of low wage employees.  Whether that means more flexible scheduling, adjusting hours, or a number of other things, what the book reveals is that people struggle between a question in many cases over whether following the rules is right, or whether to take care of each other.

For those who haven't been exposed to some of the issues that face low-wage workers, it's not a bad place to start, as they have certain systemic difficulties that are often not appreciated.  When you look at people with families, this becomes especially pronounced.  A poor person chooses to work, but cannot make a wage equal to childcare costs, and this is a situation the system faces all the time.  The range of responses goes from "don't have kids" and "it isn't my responsibility" to using kin networks and finding extra support from unexpected places.  It makes you think.

Regardless of your orientation, what makes the book especially insightful is that Dodson includes people in their own words, so you can see the attitudes without too much interference from the author.  She spends much time talking about people in health-care situations such as care homes, about educational problems faced by teachers when parents have to choose between the time for working and proper child care, and about the techniques used to make the scales balance.

On a personal level, this book contributes to a growing idea that I have that there is a larger disparity for people at the bottom that our system basically ignores.  I think it is a reasonable expectation for us to have people that work, but that I begin to wonder how well a system works when someone has two full-time jobs and cannot meet their basic needs.  I have begun looking around more and see this situation in reality as well as the books that have been written.  It seems wrong to me, and a perversion of the American Dream where hard work leads to the promise of a better life.

More chilling, I think of what is happening to the next generation.  I think of children who are being raised by proxy, who have no parent to direct them through school with encouragement and motivation (either through negligence on the part of the parent, or with the best of intention but an impossible economic choice, as the result is the same) and what this will mean for our future.  With so many people who call themselves responsible waiting longer to have kids, if they have any at all, and no clear resources to guide the next generation, here is what I see:  We have a hodgepodge of resources, schools that vary greatly in quality, and no real investment in the individuals who will make up the next generation.

Yes, we can say that it is the responsibility of the parents.  That has always been the tradition, and I think it is what most people desire.  But with the reality that we had a social system based on the nuclear family, where the father worked and the mother handled the child raising duties which far exceed infancy, what will it mean for us to have such limited parenting as our economic reality is forcing on these two income families where, realistically, both parents have to work.  I cannot imagine it is a good thing, so I find myself thinking deeply about the social cost with the realization that if we do not look after our children, then the price we shall pay later shall be great indeed.

I recommend the book.  If nothing else, it will make you look at a corner of the world that you may not see every day, and make you think about some problems that are faced everyday.  I am sure people will disagree about the solutions, but having greater understanding of reality and its challenges has value for absolutely everyone.

While everyone has been understandably focused on the upcoming health bill, that at this time is scheduled to be voted upon on Sunday, I've seen lots of interesting arguments made.  I have a pretty fair understanding of those who support it and those who oppose it, but I haven't read many political analyses of the consequences for the Congressmen voting on the bill.

For Republicans, it is a very simple calculation to vote "no" in accordance with the desire to stand opposed to the President, the congressional majority, and in agreement with the wishes of most party members, the strongest conservative movements, tea party independents, and others.

For Democrats, from a purely political perspective, I think it makes more sense to pass the bill.  For better or worse, they've chosen this as the ground where they are going to fight and 2010 will be a referendum on the health care legislation.  It has become immaterial whether the bill passes or not that this will be the issue (failing some unforeseen complication like a major terrorist attack) of voting preference.  If the bill is not passed, the conservative base will be energized, and the liberal and progressive constituencies that back most Democrats will be demoralized.  Conversely, if the bill passes, the majority of Democrats will at least have an issue on which they can mobilize their own network of support agencies.

If it passes, this will be a big part of the reason why.  Having decided health care is the issue, they cannot invest a year on the subject without some results.  An imperfect result still allows them to claim a major victory according to their rhetoric.  Every poll suggests that there will be a price to pay in November for this, but that is now true in any event.  With a passed bill, the Democrats' own troops will rally more, and it is easier to defend action than intention alone.

This is the logic of politics, which will satisfy no one wanting to discuss the bill on the merits.  I wish more people did just that, wish that Congress didn't grease up bills for passage, and I am glad to people are getting to see in detail, in this debate, how bills are made to pass.  But I also know what happens with too much wishful thinking.

I respect protests and the right to do so immensely, but I have noticed one thing.  If the people you protest against know you aren't voting for them, that you were actively opposing them from the beginning, and that you will soon be against them, it is hard to persuade them.  The money might be better spent on lawyers and campaigns than how it has been thus far.  Just my thoughts.

Answering questions is easy. Solving problems is hard. In many successful campaigns, the candidate who wins is the one who frames the issues such that their answers appear as the obvious and popular solutions to the problems. The issue can be terrorism, jobs, taxes, health care, or whatever, but they pick somewhere they can win, and basically say “I understand and he doesn't.” And they often win.

But how many problems do we leave unsolved because they are too hard? I am not the sort of person who can look away from big issues because they are hard to resolve, or because they don't fit easily into my ideology, or because they might cost me votes. But, they are hard for a reason, and sometimes, there are no clear answers.

I've been looking hard at poverty. Sometimes, we tell ourselves as a society that this is a personal and moral issue. It is the deficiency of people who refuse to work, who choose an alternative life, and we cede any jurisdiction over that with the easily defensible position that any individual can succeed. We know this to be true, and celebrate the success stories that are there, but what of those who do not?

I wish things were so simple. They aren't. We live in a society where there is more wealth than ever before, but where the disparities continue to grow greater. Forget the stereotype image of a leech milking the system for one moment, and instead think of the person who only has limited education trying to make a living on under ten dollars per hour. This is a person willing to work, let's say, who suffered through a substandard education system, might have had only one parent, and I wonder what their future holds. Not too good.

Take a poor urban neighborhood. Housing is depressed, where many people live in places surrounded by all sorts of crime, violence, and drug abuse. Families are haphazard in their existence. Schools are known more for their security than their academics. Decent jobs are hard to find because private capital has gone where the money is: the suburbs. Compare that with the background of someone you might know, who went to a decent school, who had a two parent family, and the opportunity to go to college and compete. Is it surprising the results are so different?

I understand there are those who would say it is not their responsibility what happens to others. I get that. And it is true that not one of us as individuals caused this. But each of us pays every day the costs of these failures. We pay in the programs that subsidize poverty by the Federal Government and that offer no real solutions. We pay in the crime and violence that exists, or the many people jailed at government expense. We pay in the cost of our society, where we find ourselves with a truth that is sickening: Is an American Dream where someone who works hard and wants better for their children now impossible for some? Is it?

You could argue that it is a cultural matter. I agree with that. I think that exists now and will continue to exist. If we sit back, say nothing, and simply say people in these situations bring this on themselves, they will continue to think that. They will continue voting for the people willing to talk to them, who argue that a big nanny state is needed, because at least they care. We need to offer a better alternative.

You all know how much I believe in limited government, specifically because I know government is a corrupting agent that accumulates power to itself. Few have done more to promote the idea that we should rollback our state apparatus. But when the government itself has created what are basically ghettos, holes where private capital will not go, where communities have become lost, I think we must find a way to help them reclaim themselves or our society will not survive. If that means local government has to become involved, I think it should. As much as we all deserve to be treated and judged as individuals, America needs to get past old divisions and unite under a cultural and governmental understanding based on responsibility, liberty, and community.

People are real. Suffering is real. And hope seems illusory. Obama won because he spoke to that. As much as anyone, I've painted a caricature of that, but the support that elected him (and that I think is now abandoning him in many ways) did so because they have real problems and real hopes. His call was that government would solve these. It cannot and will not. But maybe, those of us out there who care and who respect individuals, we can find a way to help people who are lost find respect for themselves.

Part of it means taking a hard look at our own beliefs. We celebrate capitalism, and the choices of a free market. What does it mean when we lose jobs here because other countries pay slave wages for their labor? Are the cheap goods worth this price? We don't want a set wage, but we know people work jobs at a rate at which no one could possibly live without subsidy? Do we accept that? Employers will have employees work 40+ hours per week but still list them as part-time for their bottom line. Is that something we should support? How much leeway do we give business over the worker, money over labor, power over those who have to follow?

I don't have the answer. I think about it for hours. I am long since past being an ideologue because I've seen too much. Empathy will do this to you. But, I think that any time that any person, institution, or entity has too much power over anyone else, that is when tyranny results. Whether it is government mandating programs that the people don't want, or whether it is businesses manipulating employees with no other choice, the fundamental question is one of justice and fairness.

And so I leave with this question that I hope everyone thinks about: What sort of society do we want to be? What future do you envision?  For myself, I tend to think that if it is one worth building, it will have to be one where everyone has a real chance to succeed, where work has d and purpose, and where we use our liberty as individuals to show our responsibility to one another.

It is amazing how absolutely expectations shape belief.  When we expect something to be "normal", "proper", or "appropriate", it can be ridiculous and still accepted.  When we expect something to be "abnormal", "inappropriate", or "different", the person speaking becomes crazy and is shunned.  Of course, most of the ideas we accept began as crazy.  Whether they are fantastic like people being able to fly, or ordinary like the idea that we are all equal regardless of appearance, these ideas were once considered insane.  It was only those few willing to question accepted reality who changed that.

I think we live in a world of invisible boxes.  We accept what we "should" do or be at the cost of who we are and who we want to be.  I see this in politics all the time.  We vote for lesser candidates because we convince ourselves it is necessary, and they know better.  We trade logic for superstition and pat ourselves on the backs for our good sense.  That is nonsense.

I will tell you what I wish, and see who agrees with me.  I wish we made decisions based on the ideas we like, and an open and honest discussion.  Maybe we shouldn't vote always for the person who has the most money.  Maybe we shouldn't always consume the name brand.  Maybe we should wake up and realize the only thing preventing us from getting what we want is our own faulty expectations.

If you reach beyond your invisible box, I think you'll discover that the air is the same and you can do anything you want.  I am doing my part to open people's eyes, as so many others are doing with facts and reason as their arsenal, and I ask you to do the same.  Don't believe me; believe yourself.

I went to my first borough meeting tonight here in Bellevue.

What was most striking to me is how few people were there.  This was a workshop meeting as opposed to the regular meeting where voting happens, but there were 12 people from government, and 5 citizens.  Think about that.  You have the elected government basically doing whatever and no one cares enough to watch or see what is happening.

I'm happy to report, at first glance, that all seems well with Bellevue.  But, for all the taxpayer rage I hear and see, what I don't see is action.  What is lacking is involvement from the people.  I know every municipality is different, but I pay a 2% wage tax to the place where I live.  That ends up being a substantial amount of money, and I want to see how it is being spent.  I think most people would also, and that is why you need to get out there.

You can lobby politicians until you are blue in the face, but that only goes so far.  Fix your communities, look to the problems there, and you might begin to prevent the need for these big solutions that are always "needed".

I know this is sometimes boring and we all have better things to do, but we have to do our part if we want things to get better.  If not, then you are consenting to someone making decisions for you.  That's fine as you have that right, but then don't complain when things happen that disappoint.